Brent E. Smith V.P. – Stimulation Services

Sabre Energy Services in Cooperation with DCS

NEW FRAC FLUIDS Learn How To Optimize The Use Of Frac Fluids To Maximize Performance & Reduce Formation Damage

Agenda

q  Current Frac Fluid Systems

q  Viscosifying Friction Reducers (VFR) Properties

q  Case Histories

q  Recent Developments with Produced Waters

Common Fracturing Vocabulary

q  (SRV) Stimulated rock volume q  Fracture conductivity ; transmissibility q  Frac hits ; well interference q  Screen-Out ; Fluid Efficiency q  Fluid Loss q  Viscosity, Rate, Pressure = Hydraulic Horsepower q  Regained Permeability (residue damage) q  Proppant Placement & Proppant Transport Bold = what you are left with after

the “soup du jour”

Common Fracturing Vocabulary

q  So, what is NEW ?

q  CLEAN viscosity & proppant transport @ lower cost

q  Unlike HEC’s, HPG, CMHPG q  hydroxypropyl guar (HPG), carboxymethyl HPG

(CMHPG), and hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC).

Develop fracture complexity and surface area (SRV) Stimulated rock volume

Common Fracturing Objectives q  Develop fracture complexity and surface area (SRV)

Stimulated rock volume q  Maximize fracture conductivity q  Avoid frac hits and well interference q  Mitigate screen-out risk; Simplify logistics q  Optimize frac equipment utilization q  Maximize production and minimize cost

q The last slide addresses this

All of the above objectives are impacted by the choice of frac fluid

Limitations of Slickwater

q Limited proppant transport (reliance on velocity)

q Often difficult to place high sand concentrations (ie; > 2 ppg)

q Requires large water volumes q Higher risk of offset well interference q Fracture heights may be lower than with

viscous fluid

Limitations of Hybrid Fluid Designs (Slickwater, Linear and/or Crosslinked) q More chemicals required è more

operational complexity q Hydration unit needed on location q High friction and treating pressures

with x-link gel q Fracture damage due to guar

residue q Higher cost

Viscosifying Friction Reducers (VFR)

q Simple operationally q No hydration equipment required q Good proppant transport q Low pipe friction q Reduced water volumes è more frac

stages per day q Very clean system

q  90% Damage in MFRAC vs. 5%

VFR @ 3 gpt

VFR Viscosity Profiles

Low Friction Pressures in Pipe

Viscosity (cP)

Shear Rate (s-1)

Flow Curve – Viscosity vs. Shear Rate 100

80

20

40 100 520

40

Good Proppant Transport in

Fracture

420 260

Slickwater vs. HVFR Frac Designs

HVFR Fluid 30% Less Water

42 minute shorter pump

time

Description FluidType

PropConc.(PPA)

StageLiquidVolume(GAL)

Cum.LiquidVolume(GAL)

Cum.Prop.Mass(LBS)

PumpRate(BPM)

Cum.Time

LoadWell Slickwater 0 2,000 2,000 0 10 4.815%HCL Acid 0.00 2,000 4,000 0 10 9.5Pad Slickwater 0.00 40,000 44,000 0 90 20.1

100mesh Slickwater 0.50 40,000 84,000 20,000 90 30.7100mesh Slickwater 0.75 40,000 124,000 50,000 90 41.3100mesh Slickwater 1.00 40,000 164,000 90,000 90 51.9100mesh Slickwater 1.25 40,000 204,000 140,000 90 62.4100mesh Slickwater 1.50 30,000 234,000 185,000 90 70.440/70mesh Slickwater 0.50 30,000 264,000 200,000 90 78.340/70mesh Slickwater 0.75 30,000 294,000 222,500 90 86.240/70mesh Slickwater 1.00 30,000 324,000 252,500 90 94.240/70mesh Slickwater 1.25 30,000 354,000 290,000 90 102.140/70mesh Slickwater 1.50 30,000 384,000 335,000 90 110.140/70mesh Slickwater 1.75 30,000 414,000 387,500 90 118.040/70mesh Slickwater 2.00 30,000 444,000 447,500 90 125.9

Flush Slickwater 0.00 10,000 454,000 447,500 80 128.9

Description FluidType

PropConc.(PPA)

StageLiquidVolume(GAL)

Cum.LiquidVolume(GAL)

Cum.Prop.Mass(LBS)

PumpRate(BPM)

Cum.Time

LoadWell HVFR 1000 1,000 0 10 2.415%HCL Acid 0 3,000 4,000 0 10 9.5Pad HVFR 0.00 25,000 29,000 0 90 16.1

100mesh HVFR 0.50 25,000 54,000 12,500 90 22.8100mesh HVFR 1.00 25,000 79,000 37,500 90 29.4100mesh HVFR 1.50 25,000 104,000 75,000 90 36.0100mesh HVFR 2.00 25,000 129,000 125,000 90 42.6100mesh HVFR 2.50 25,000 154,000 187,500 90 49.240/70mesh HVFR 0.75 20,000 174,000 202,500 90 54.540/70mesh HVFR 1.00 20,000 194,000 222,500 90 59.840/70mesh HVFR 1.50 18,000 212,000 249,500 90 64.640/70mesh HVFR 2.00 18,000 230,000 285,500 90 69.340/70mesh HVFR 2.50 18,000 248,000 330,500 90 74.140/70mesh HVFR 3.00 18,000 266,000 384,500 90 78.840/70mesh HVFR 3.50 18,000 284,000 447,500 90 83.6

Flush HVFR 0.00 10,000 294,000 447,500 90 86.2

Example Slick-water pump schedule

Description FluidType

PropConc.(PPA)

StageLiquidVolume(GAL)

Cum.LiquidVolume(GAL)

Cum.Prop.Mass(LBS)

PumpRate(BPM)

Cum.Time

LoadWell Slickwater 1000 1,000 0 10 2.415%HCL Acid 3,000 4,000 0 10 9.5Pad Slickwater 40,000 44,000 0 90 20.1

100mesh Slickwater 0.50 25,000 69,000 12,500 90 26.7100mesh Slickwater 0.75 25,000 94,000 31,250 90 33.3100mesh Slickwater 1.00 25,000 119,000 56,250 90 39.9100mesh Slickwater 1.25 25,000 144,000 87,500 90 46.6100mesh Slickwater 1.50 25,000 169,000 125,000 90 53.240/70mesh 20#Linear 0.50 25,000 194,000 137,500 90 59.840/70mesh 20#Linear 1.00 25,000 219,000 162,500 90 66.440/70mesh 20#Linear 1.50 25,000 244,000 200,000 90 73.040/70mesh 20#Linear 2.00 25,000 269,000 250,000 90 79.640/70mesh 20#Linear 2.50 25,000 294,000 312,500 90 86.240/70mesh 20#Crosslink 3.00 20,000 314,000 372,500 90 91.540/70mesh 20#Crosslink 3.50 20,000 334,000 442,500 90 96.8

Flush Slickwater 15,000 349,000 442,500 90 100.8

Replacing Hybrid Designs

Description FluidType

PropConc.(PPA)

FRConc.(gal/M)

StageLiquidVolume(GAL)

Cum.LiquidVolume(GAL)

Cum.Prop.Mass(LBS)

PumpRate(BPM)

Cum.Time

LoadWell HVFR 1000 1,000 0 10 2.415%HCL Acid 3,000 4,000 0 10 9.5Pad HVFR 0.50 40,000 44,000 0 90 20.1

100mesh HVFR 0.50 0.50 25,000 69,000 12,500 90 26.7100mesh HVFR 0.75 0.50 25,000 94,000 31,250 90 33.3100mesh HVFR 1.00 0.50 25,000 119,000 56,250 90 39.9100mesh HVFR 1.25 0.50 25,000 144,000 87,500 90 46.6100mesh HVFR 1.50 0.50 25,000 169,000 125,000 90 53.240/70mesh HVFR 0.50 0.50 25,000 194,000 137,500 90 59.840/70mesh HVFR 1.00 1.00 25,000 219,000 162,500 90 66.440/70mesh HVFR 1.50 1.50 25,000 244,000 200,000 90 73.040/70mesh HVFR 2.00 2.00 25,000 269,000 250,000 90 79.640/70mesh HVFR 2.50 2.50 25,000 294,000 312,500 90 86.240/70mesh HVFR 3.00 3.00 20,000 314,000 372,500 90 91.540/70mesh HVFR 3.50 3.50 20,000 334,000 442,500 90 96.8

Flush HVFR 0.00 0.50 15,000 349,000 442,500 90 100.8

Chemical Type Friction Reducer

Clay Stabilizer

Surfactant

Biocide

Scale Inhibitor

FR Breaker

Replacing Hybrid Designs

HVFR HVFR

Regain Conductivity of Various Frac Fluids

Proppant Transport Experiment

VFR @ 3gpt Viscosity – 11.1 cp

Proppant Transport Experiment 1 ppg 40/70 sand

20 ppt linear guar gel Viscosity – 19.9 cp

Proppant Transport Experiment 1 ppg 40/70 sand

Well 1 Hybrid

Well 2 HVFR

SW, MBBL 243 251 HVFR, MBBL 0 56 18# LIN, MBBL 21 0 18# XL, MBBL 41 0

TOTAL FLUID, MBBL 305.4 307.3

100 MESH, MM# 4.7 4.7

40/70, MM# 7.6 7.6

TOTAL PROP, MM# 12.3 12.3

~750’

Leaselines

Case History 1: STACK Play Oklahoma SPE-189893-MS Case Studies of High Viscosity Friction Reducers (HVFR) in the STACK Play This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference held in The Woodlands, TX, USA, 23-25 January 2018.

Summary

q  20,000 BOE higher production after 80 days

q  Reduced chemical cost by 30%

q  Reduced chemicals on location

Case History 1: STACK Play Oklahoma

SPE-189893-MS Case Studies of High Viscosity Friction Reducers (HVFR) in the STACK Play This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference held in The Woodlands, TX, USA, 23-25 January 2018.

Case History 2 – Eagle Ford Shale (Fayette County, TX)

Location of well in Fayette County

Image courtesy of Earthstone Energy, Inc.

q  Operator is Earthstone Energy q  Traditionally used hybrid fluid designs

Completion Objectives q Reduce costs over crosslinked fluid

system q Place comparable sand volumes q Evaluate production performance

SPE-185084-MS Applications of Viscosity-Building Friction Reducers as Fracturing Fluids This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Oklahoma City Oil and Gas Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 27—30 March 2017.

Summary

q  All stages placed w/o screenout

q  Reduced chemicals and equipment on location

q  95% increase in production q  17% chemical cost reduction

Case 2: Eagle Ford – South Texas

Production normalized to lateral length

HVFR Wells

Offset Wells

(hybrid)

SPE-185084-MS Applications of Viscosity-Building Friction Reducers as Fracturing Fluids This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Oklahoma City Oil and Gas Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 27—30 March 2017.

Recent R&D for Produced Water Applications – FR Booster for higher TDS waters ( > 40,000 mg/L for example)

General Information Water 1 Water 2Water Fresh water Produced water

Sample Point Pond 1 Pond 2Fluid appearance Clear TurbidPrecipitate at bottom None yesFluid color Colorless Opaque light brownFluid Odor None Organic smellpH 8.09 6.85Specific gravity 1.001 1.082

Parameters Concentration Concentration Alkalinity(1)(as C aC O3mg/L ) 186mg/L 1080mg/LTotalHardness(1)(as C aC O3mg/L ) 376mg/L 9530mg/LCalcium(1)(as C aC O3mg/L ) 354mg/L 8150mg/LMagnesium(1)(as C aC O3mg/L ) 22mg/L 1380mg/LManganese(2)(as Mn) 0.1mg/L 11.5mg/LIron(2)(F e) 0.06mg/L 17.8mg/LPhosphate(3)(PO4) 5mg/L 5mg/LSulfate(2)(S O4) 230mg/L 790mg/LBarium(2)(B a) 1mg/L 16mg/LHydrogenSulfide(4)(H2S ) 0 0FreeChlorine(as C l2) 0 0Chloride(3)(C l) 189mg/L 64700mg/LTDS(5)(as c onduc tiv ity at25C ) 898mg/L 116350mg/LOxidationReductionPotential(5) 221mV 66mV

Recent R&D for Produced Water Applications – FR Booster

Examples of Costs - Fracturing Fluid Systems Description UOM Loading

TreatingGallons

UsedPriceafter

Discount(USD)Netprice(USD)

Totalprice(USD)

AnionicFR(non-viscosifying)

GAL 0.5 1,000 0.5 6.00 3.00

Surfactant GAL 1 1,000 1.0 4.50 4.50ClayStabilizer GAL 0.75 1,000 0.8 5.00 3.75ScaleInhibitor GAL 0.5 1,000 0.5 3.50 1.75Biocide GAL 0.5 1,000 0.5 10.50 5.25

VFRPolymer GAL 3 1,000 3.0 10.00 30.00Breaker GAL 0.5 1,000 0.5 6.00 3.00Surfactant GAL 1 1,000 1.0 4.50 4.50ClayStabilizer GAL 0.75 1,000 0.8 5.00 3.75ScaleInhibitor GAL 0.5 1,000 0.5 3.50 1.75Biocide GAL 0.5 1,000 0.5 10.50 5.25

Guar GAL 4.5 1,000 4.5 8.00 36.00Breaker GAL 2 1,000 2.0 6.13 12.25Surfactant GAL 1 1,000 1.0 4.50 4.50ClayStabilizer GAL 0.75 1,000 0.8 5.00 3.75ScaleInhibitor GAL 0.5 1,000 0.5 3.50 1.75Biocide GAL 0.5 1,000 0.5 10.50 5.25

Guar GAL 4.5 1,000 4.5 8.00 36.00Breaker GAL 2 1,000 2.0 6.13 12.25Surfactant GAL 1 1,000 1.0 4.50 4.50ClayStabilizer GAL 0.75 1,000 0.8 5.00 3.75ScaleInhibitor GAL 0.5 1,000 0.5 3.50 1.75Biocide GAL 0.5 1,000 0.5 10.50 5.25pHBuffer(down) GAL 0.15 1,000 0.2 5.30 0.80pHBuffer(up) GAL 0.25 1,000 0.3 2.00 0.50DelayedBorateXL GAL 1 1,000 1.0 8.00 8.00InstantBorateXL GAL 0.5 1,000 0.5 7.00 3.50

18.25

48.25

63.50

76.30

Slickwater

VFR

18#Linear

18#XL

Slick Water

VFR

18# Linear

$ 18.25

$ 48.25

$ 63.50

$ 76.30

Total $ Price / Mg

18# XL

Comparing HVFRs è What to Look For

q Cost q Regain fracture conductivity q Proppant transport q Any incompatibilities (ie; iron, etc)? q Experience and case histories q What concentrations typically required?

Experience with DCS HVFR - Over 30,000 Frac Stages

Photo Courtesy of YPF

Thank You

bsmith@sabreenergyservices.com USA CELL: 1-307-359-8627 Brent.smith@seawatertechnologies.com

THE END